White House Indicates Potential Crackdown on Recreational Marijuana | Hacker News Reader

White House Indicates Potential Crackdown on Recreational Marijuana

drugpolicy.org

172 pointscnp146 comments

Here's an article that references the study they're likely referring to: https://www.rt.com/usa/359655-marijuana-laws-opioid-usage/

The jist is: measuring opioid usage in people after a fatal car crash, states with medical marijuana had much lower rates of opioid usage. I haven't read the study, and while that measurement may be a bit dubious (pun?) I think the conclusion is probably correct.

A lot of people don't do illegal drugs, but will gladly and happily do legal ones. Opioids are legally prescribed and incredibly addictive, making them ripe for abuse by people who wouldn't normally be "drug addicts." With marijuana being legal it provides a non-addictive means of pain relief that's a much more pleasant and safe alternative to opioids. Hell even acetaminophen is vastly more dangerous than marijuana (and a cause of liver failure).

I think what Spicer said in the article is insane. I can only hope states fight back tooth and nail if the federal government attempts to "crack down." Marijuana is one of the few drugs we can do that's nearly harmless... Well, relative to any other drug we can do (alcohol or tobacco).

Edit: updates for grammar and clarity (damn you autocorrect!).

There is a US News article[1] that references a study by the AJPH[2].

[1] https://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2016-09-15/study-opioid...

[2] http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/abs/10.2105/AJPH.2016.3...

The opioid crisis is a product of, ironically, crackdowns on opioid abuse. For people with chronic pain, opioids may be the only option to live with it, and they need frequent doses. If it gets hard to acquire them because of “abuse-preventing” bureaucracy, they are forced to turn to the black market, not out of addiction, but dependency for pain relief.

There is a benefit to legal marijuana that it might be chosen instead of harder drugs, perhaps, but I don't think it should be mixed up with painkillers, which are their own issue.

That's not the argument of Quinones's book Dreamland: http://seliger.com/2016/10/04/review-dreamland-true-tale-ame..., and Dreamland, like most other books and articles I've seen, argues that availability and over-prescribing have been major contributors to the crisis.

If you can believe it, both are true. It sounds like a contradiction, but it isn't as cut and dry as our brains might like it to be, or like a writer might like it to be.

They are both over and under-prescribed. Pain is both over and undertreated every day in every state in the country. There are pill mills, there are stingy ER's and clinics, it goes both ways. It isn't one or the other.

On one hand, you have doctor shopping.

On the other, you have legitimate chronic pain sufferers turning to the street to make ends meet.

My grandparents bought pills from the black market at black market prices to fill the gap of under treatment. At the same time, people were paying cash-only pain management clinics for prescriptions which they were filling multiple times.

There will always be abusers, lawmakers and activists need to realize that you can't regulate or price someone out of an addiction (or a dependency.)

There is a staggering difference between addiction (which usually involves abuse) and dependency (which usually involves no abuse)

Addiction to prescription opiates leads to one of two roads. The problem road is heroin. For example:

Let's say you get addicted because you abuse the pills prescribed to you after surgery. You continue to maintain your addiction with drugs purchased from the street, then at some point you remember that heroin exists and is dirt cheap compared to the dollar per milligram you were paying for oxycodone. Suddenly, heroin doesn't seem so evil. Now you have a new perspective about heroin, mainly that it's cheaper and more potent than prescription pills.

Dependency, meanwhile, can be maintained under a doctors supervision for years. Pain can be managed with prescription opiates safely and effectively, increasing the quality of life of someone who suffers from pain every single day.

It's a multi-faceted issue with many variables, you can't really reduce it down to one sentence or another. There is no easy solution, either. You can't under-prescribe or prosecute doctors, that just hurts the people suffering the most.

I know what the solution isn't, though: banning fucking kratom. this entire thing is a complete and total structure fire, and the DEA is trying to immediately move to Schedule I a powdered leaf that stops withdrawals for addicts. For the opiate naive, taking powdered kratom leaf results in a light buzz. For an opiate addict, it's no buzz + immediate relief of withdrawal symptoms.

There is always methadone and suboxone, but these drugs are extremely long-acting. Meaning that if and when you come off of them, you will be in withdrawals for weeks or even months. For comparison, short-acting opiates like heroin withdrawals last about a week, maybe two.

Now that you know this, it might not surprise you to hear that methadone patients often switch back to shorter-acting drugs like heroin to attempt to get clean.

Ironic, isn't it?

Except people only started dying when crackdowns intensified on legal, pharmaceutical, sources and prescribers of opioids.

Crackdowns on "pill mills" and "overprescribing doctors" is what denies people a safe and legal source of pharmaceutical-grade opioids and forces them onto the black market of illegal, overpriced, and fentanyl-contaminated opioids.

Also crackdowns on "over-prescribing" invariably lead to people who experience chronic pain being denied medical access (or being subjected to extremely invasive and degrading treatment to weed out "drug seekers").

The DEA cracking skulls over opioids and investigating doctors is literally the only reason illicit fentanyl even is a thing. I am so very doubtful that skull-cracking and door-kicking will miraculously work after decades of it not working.

Do you want even nastier and even more potent (per unit volume) opioids than fentanyl? Because more prohibition (and yes, investigating and prosecuting doctors is absolutely a component of opioid prohibition) is just gonna give that result.

It saddens me greatly to know that the majority of people in this world would rather let people die from overdose than allow them to get high... Is it really such a big deal? So they like doing drugs. In the grand scheme of things, isn't the more humane thing to do just allowing them to use while pursuing more humane options for getting them off drugs (rehab and education)?

That's one take. I've also heard that marijuana decriminalization is taking the margin out of many drug operations.

Supposedly, Weed is like the ground beef of drug sales.

Looks like prescription medicine is rife with opportunity for some kind of ML analysis to find abuse and be more "just" (make better decisions) about restricting distribution and use.

If you care about this issue you should really read the book, which addresses all of the points you raise in detail.

I just finished it last week, there were a lot of 'holy shit' moments along the way.

Fentanyl is a thing also because it's easier to make than heroin because the reactants needed are easier to get your hands on, therefore cheaper for the dealer's/cartel's/gang's chemists to make.

On the more potent point, almost(?) all of the more potent opioids are derivatives of fentanyl and iirc use fentanyl in the synthesis so probably won't become a street drug. Also they're so potent they really are only good for killing people. (Honestly I'm suprised fentanyl is a thing because the active dose is like tens of micrograms and requires expensive equipment to measure safely. But I doubt drug cartels care if they're customers are poisoned by their product.)

> On the more potent point, almost(?) all of the more potent opioids are derivatives of fentanyl and iirc use fentanyl in the synthesis so probably won't become a street drug.

You're alas wrong here. There's already derivatives of fentanyl being made illicitly and appearing in the illicit drugs markets. Not just any analogues of fent either -- there's been carfentanil (an opioid so potent that it's been successfully used as a chemical weapon) in product sold as heroin.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carfentanil

> Honestly I'm suprised fentanyl is a thing because the active dose is like tens of micrograms and requires expensive equipment to measure safely

Ah, but a tiny active dose means that for a given quantity of raw material, lots of (very diluted) doses for end users can be made. This is the deadly "iron law of prohibition" at work here -- the harder the enforcement, the more potent the drugs.

For a unit volume (so, for a unit risk of ending up in a concrete box) of uncut/active material, you want to be able to sell the most diluted/cut doses to end-users. Of course people will want their chemist to synthesise carfentanil (over regular fentanyl), because you can supply the the same number of end-user doses with 10,000 times less active material.

The unfortunate thing is this system also denies drugs to people who really need them, while abusers can still get them legally and illegally. Recently I had to go to the ER for a painful cyst. Online sources indicate patients often receive opiates for the related pain, which was significant. They not only gave me nothing for pain while there or after, but also seemed more interested in screening me out as a drug seeker than helping me.

I've known quite a few heroin addicts who got started because of a prescription for relatively mild but on-going pain. At some point the pain was gone, but the desire/addiction was not... Perhaps I'm just weighing my anecdotal knowledge too highly.

I'm not saying opioids are always inappropriate but I think a lot of situations could do without them if marijuana was available as an alternative.

Something to consider: perhaps these people became addicted when they discovered that opiates provided relief from underlying depression... I have a feeling this may be one reason why some get addicted and others don't. (Believe it or not, some people even dislike taking opiates!)

disclaimer: I am kind of obsessed with the self-medication theory of addiction

When I was suffering from bad back pain, the amount opiates that was being written for me was ridiculous.

I refused to take it, the side affects, even in the short term were awful.

> The opioid crisis is a product of, ironically, crackdowns on opioid abuse.

This does not mesh with reality in states like West Virginia, where drug companies sent 9 million pills in two years to a town with less than 400 people - 780 million pills in six years to a state with 1.8 million people.

As the "crackdown" revved up in these states, more people have died as they've turned to replace their prescription habit with heroin, and street heroin is increasingly being laced with fentanyl analogs which cause nearly instant overdoses.

Not pinning this on the drug companies or doctors that are handing out these drugs like candy to anyone willing to write a check is putting the blame way downstream of where it belongs. The DEA sure can crackdown on marijuana and molly but Rx drug abuse? Move along, citizen. Nothing to see here.

Follow the money!

The crackdown on OxyContin certainly seems to have made things worse. The OxyContin users were driven to switch to black market heroin. Black market heroin is much more dangerous than OxyContin.

Oxycontin was suddenly a dollar per milligram when that happened. It seems obvious in hindsight what the result would be.

That's 80 dollars for one 80 milligram pill, which is about 6 hours worth of a high for someone crushing and snorting it. Less time well per dollar spent if they're smoking or injecting them, more if it's being taken orally.

Also, keep in mind that Oxycontin was reformulated to be resistant to crushing, meaning that suddenly a lot of addicts were up shit creek without a paddle when they couldn't snort/smoke/inject or even chew the pill they just bought.

Heroin, on the other hand, is much cheaper, more potent, and more widely available than Oxycontin could ever hope to be.

When you're that deep in the hole of addiction, you start thinking of heroin not as evil, but as a cheap, potent substitute for the prescription pills you've been throwing money away on. It's a fucked up path that too many have walked.

Medicare Part D played a huge role in the opiod epidemic.

Patients were given $3 bottles of Oxy with a street value of $10k in areas targeted by the drug companies because of high unemployment.

http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2017/01/sam_quinones_on.htm...

Capitalism cuts both ways.

The book Chasing the Scream is a great summary of how crackdowns on opioid abuse, and other drugs, have led to the problems we have today. I've mentioned it other times on HN, and it's still a well-written primer to why we should legalize many, and perhaps all, drugs.

[1] http://chasingthescream.com

Came here also to recommend Chasing the Scream. It was an enlightening read for me.

Marijuana use is correlated with improved outcomes for patients in opiate addiction programs. That said, I'm not sure what you mean by marijuana being more pleasant than opioids. Have you done both?

I had a bike crash about six months ago and was prescribed a handful of Norco, which is about the least opioid opiate around these days. If the phrase "worst constipation of your life" does not yet have meaning...

I was prescribed oxycodone after getting hit by a car and my liver couldn't process the Tylenol in the pIll adequately and I was feeling nauseous and faint. I collapsed in my primary care doctor's office when getting looked over a couple days after leaving ER.

I decided to just bear through the searing pain than risk permanent organ damage.

This was interesting:

"Based on his review of the scientific literature, between 10 to 30% of regular users will develop dependency. Only about 9% will have a serious addiction"

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-teenage-mind/201012...

That 9% is a sham. Here's the critiera for an substance addiction which only needs 2 to be checked. Note the 1st 4 points and the Tolerance point. It's easy to see how 9% checked 2 of those points (I would).

  - The substance is often taken in larger amounts or over a longer period than was intended.
  - There is a persistent desire or unsuccessful effort to cut down or control use of the substance.
  - A great deal of time is spent in activities necessary to obtain the substance, use the substance, or recover from its effects.
  - Craving, or a strong desire or urge to use the substance.
  - Recurrent use of the substance resulting in a failure to fulfill major role obligations at work, school, or home.
  - Continued use of the substance despite having persistent or recurrent social or interpersonal problems caused or exacerbated by the effects of its use.
  - Important social, occupational, or recreational activities are given up or reduced because of use of the substance.
  - Recurrent use of the substance in situations in which it is physically hazardous.
  - Use of the substance is continued despite knowledge of having a persistent or recurrent physical or psychological problem that is likely to have been caused or exacerbated by the substance.
  - Tolerance, as defined by either of the following:
      - A need for markedly increased amounts of the substance to achieve intoxication or desired effect.
      - A markedly diminished effect with continued use of the same amount of the substance.
  - Withdrawal, as manifested by either of the following:
      - The characteristic withdrawal syndrome for that substance (as specified in the DSM- 5 for each substance).
      - The substance (or a closely related substance) is taken to relieve or avoid withdrawal symptoms.

can you not link rt please. we don't need Putin's mouthpiece

>But Spicer said that there is a big difference between medical and recreational marijuana, commenting that “When you see something like the opioid addiction crisis blossoming in so many states around this country, the last thing we should be doing is encouraging people.”

Pretty mind-numbing to see people still peddling gateway theory. Is there any real link between recreational pot and opioid addiction in any meaningful, causative way?

This quote from the article indicates the opposite effect, actually! I'd like to see the study that concluded this, but it's an easy statement for me to believe.

> "As for connecting marijuana to the legal opioid crisis, Spicer has it exactly backwards. Greater access to marijuana has actually led to declines in opioid use, overdoses and other problems."

Yeah I saw that. So I'm confused on where he's getting this idea, since as far as I'm aware of current research...the trend is the opposite.

He doesn't listen to experts or research. Instead, he uses common sense.

“So really,” continued Eric, “I should be saying sorry to you, for jumping to the wrong conclusion. Instead of considering all the evidence, I just applied some common sense—otherwise known as prejudice—and came up with a totally wrong answer.”

― Lucy Hawking, George's Secret Key to the Universe

https://www.goodreads.com/work/quotes/857108-george-s-secret...

53% of British Columbians have tried marijuana, and 2.4% use opioids. Not much of a gateway...

I wonder what percentage of legal opioid users move onto heroin and obtaining the drug via illegal means. If more, then at very least the theory is applied in a hypocritical way.

This is one basis of the fentanyl crisis in BC, eg http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/british-columbia/north-v...

Heh heh. When I was growing up there was a big push to prevent kids from smoking, because smoking was supposed to be the gateway drug to marijuana. When I got to college I heard the same thing from all the smokers: "I never had any desire to smoke cigarettes until after I started smoking pot."

likely a result of its questionable legality, since cigarettes are a perfectly valid reason to smell like smoke.

Isn't the current opioid problem caused by Drs over prescribing oxycotins due to the pharma company basically lying / manipulating the data on addition and redosing for greater profit?

i.e. nothing at all to do with cannabis

What does it matter since the prohibition of cannabis has never been about harm. You can have all the studies in the world and it won't matter a damn... and my proof of this? Why is industrial hemp illegal?

dupont!

It's extremely difficult to find an addict that didn't "try pot first" but that's only one part of the equation.

Where it breaks down is when you draw the correlation as "most hard drug users have tried pot, so most of the people who tried pot become hardcore drug users". OF course we know that not to be the case.

However if you only use the first part of the definition (as many anti marijuana advocates do) then you must acknowledge the amount of hard drug users who smoke cigarettes ( a lot ) therefore cigarettes are also a gateway drug. Still legal.

I too am surprised this theory is still being peddled.

Personal/anecdotal:

I worked near addicts in treatment for a few years, (no I am not an expert or counselor it was a tech role) and I noticed many of them smoked cigarettes. Many of them still smoked weed too for medical purposes and it simply didn't have the adverse affects on their life that the "other" drugs did (heroin, meth, etc). It's simply not in the same class.

I'm not a pot smoker and never have been, but I strongly agree with legalization based on what I've seen.

Was needing roof access to replace a controller or sensor last year and a 30-something manager had to unlock door & escort me. I mentioned was nice to have stairs & a door instead of ladder+hatch. Their response was it was a detriment, as employees were going out and smoking cigs so they had to lock it. As an aside, they said "luckily nobody smoked pot and jumped off the roof". I chuckled and waited for the punchline, but one never came.

Support for legal marijuana and ending prohibition is up to 60% and over 70% for democrats and independents, republicans up to 42%[1].

They are fighting a losing battle and most politicians will not go against that type of landslide polling.

Good luck, 2.4 billion in Colorado, 20,000 new jobs and personal freedoms will not go away lightly[2].

They could legalize and end prohibition and throw the other side a bone, but if they pick this fight it will be a huge mistake and an attack on logical/smart people [3] and public opinion [1].

Prohibition makes the punishment on a non-violent personal action into a crime, wasting billions (20-50 billion)[4] of tax dollars and funding cartels, to the tune of 25-50+ billion [5], while harming decent people.

[1] http://www.gallup.com/poll/196550/support-legal-marijuana.as...

[2] http://www.denverpost.com/2016/10/26/colorado-weed-economic-...

[3] http://edition.cnn.com/2017/02/22/health/teens-smoking-drink...

[4] https://www.aclu.org/blog/hundreds-economists-marijuana-proh...

[5] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/03/03/legal...

This administration is so weird that I wonder if there isn't a power Illuminati style group of trolls out there.

Hear me out, I don't think I am crazy. I don't believe this, I just see it as more and more plausible every news story that comes out of the white house.

What if several of the world's richest, perhaps Gates, Buffet and a few other like minded kind souls got together. What if they did everything in their power, legal and illegal, to elect the most preposterous candidate possible. All the shouting about the election being rigged has people looking for fake democrats, not trump supporters.

Then they have this candidate do everything the wrong way, and obviously the wrong way. This is intentional, is should mobilize and unify all the people against a bunch of idiocy. By the time this is done we will either have destroy the coastline or we will all understand what CO2 can do.

Instead of trying to shroud BS arguments in a veil of reason-ability like typical a GOP politician Trump comes out and does the dumbest thing he can for "his" side of the argument. There are GOP hardliners that back him, but it seems to taper off as the crazyness continues. Eventually everyone just towing the line will be unelectable or at least powerless for a brief time and we do a bunch of objectively smart things like end the war on terror, end the war on drugs, pass more laws protecting church and state, make sure future presidents can read, strengthen our healthcare, etc....

But that is just not as simple the other explanation: Americans, my fellow countrymen, elected someone just as dumb as them.

This reminds me of the well-known saying...

"Never attribute to a shadowy cabal of illuminati, what can be more easily explained by incompetence"

That is exactly how I ended my post.

Drug policy hasn't been a really hot topic for a long time. If it becomes one, you can guarantee that the right-wing media are going to sway the opinions of a lot of Republicans and conservative Democrats.

So I really would really not count my chickens before they hatch here, and would not underestimate my opponents or the gullibility and intolerance of the general public.

The fact is that illegal drug users are a minority in the United States, and a widely despised minority at that. The United States has not had a very rosy history in regards to the treatment of widely despised minorities. That history could very easily be repeated.

Voter opinion can be pretty malleable.

E.g. Republican's have become significantly more pro-Russian recently:

> Back in July 2014 just 10 percent of Republicans held a favorable view of Putin, according to a poll conducted by the Economist and YouGov. By September of 2016, that number rose to 24 percent. And it's even higher today: 37 percent of Republicans view Putin favorably, the poll found in December.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/12/gop-russia-putin-suppo...

So, Republicans go crazy over Roe v. Wade and the supreme court decision on gay marriage, citing 'activist' judges going against the will of the people. Now, recreational marijuana has been put to the people, and in those states where the majority approved, Republicans want the feds to come in and enforce prohibition. What happened to the party of small government and states' rights? The hypocrisy really never ends with the Republican party.

Clarence Thomas would agree with you. Hopefully Neil Gorsuch will be in his mold:

"Justice Thomas also wrote a separate dissent, stating in part:

Respondents Diane Monson and Angel Raich use marijuana that has never been bought or sold, that has never crossed state lines, and that has had no demonstrable effect on the national market for marijuana. If Congress can regulate this under the Commerce Clause, then it can regulate virtually anything—and the Federal Government is no longer one of limited and enumerated powers.

Respondent's local cultivation and consumption of marijuana is not "Commerce... among the several States."

[...]

Certainly no evidence from the founding suggests that "commerce" included the mere possession of a good or some personal activity that did not involve trade or exchange for value. In the early days of the Republic, it would have been unthinkable that Congress could prohibit the local cultivation, possession, and consumption of marijuana.

[...]

If the Federal Government can regulate growing a half-dozen cannabis plants for personal consumption (not because it is interstate commerce, but because it is inextricably bound up with interstate commerce), then Congress' Article I powers – as expanded by the Necessary and Proper Clause – have no meaningful limits. Whether Congress aims at the possession of drugs, guns, or any number of other items, it may continue to "appropria[te] state police powers under the guise of regulating commerce."

[...]

If the majority is to be taken seriously, the Federal Government may now regulate quilting bees, clothes drives, and potluck suppers throughout the 50 States. This makes a mockery of Madison's assurance to the people of New York that the "powers delegated" to the Federal Government are "few and defined", while those of the States are "numerous and indefinite."[12]"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich

I have often wondered about the legal basis for the prohibition on cannabis. I always assumed it must be the interstate commerce clause but I could never make out why we needed an amendment to outlaw alcohol.

> I could never make out why we needed an amendment to outlaw alcohol.

We didn't. We needed an amendment to ban alcohol in a way which could not be undone without a subsequent Amendment; the 18th Amendment banned alcohol itself, it didn't grant Congress discretion to do so.

iirc, we largely ended prohibition because it was giving massive profits to organized crime

a bit ironic now when we have a president railing against mexican cartels and promoting prohibition of marijuana.

those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it and all that...

> Clarence Thomas would agree with you. Hopefully Neil Gorsuch will be in his mold

Raich was 6-3, Gorsuch voting with Thomas rather than the way Scalia did gets you to losing 5-4.

And oddly enough Democrats support states' rights when it comes to marijuana, but don't trust the states on abortion or health care.

There is a certain type of Republican that simply doesn't have principles. They have tribal loyalties, prejudices, and resentments. They are only interested in passing laws that benefit "our people" and laws that punish "those people".

Speaking as someone with no particular interest in using either, I'd much rather have a neighbour who was a recreational marijuana user than one who was a a recreational gun user.

But, you know, tastes vary, and apparently the laws reflect a different aesthetic to mine.

Personally, I'd prefer the recreational gun user. But what I'd really prefer is not both - not a recreational marijuana and gun user.

You should be in favor of alcohol prohibition then, because a drunk gun user is far, far more dangerous than a high one.

I am in favor of people not mixing alcohol and guns, yes. But I didn't say I was in favor of marijuana prohibition, so your conclusion does not follow at all from what I said.

> ... a drunk gun user is far, far more dangerous than a high one.

Source? I could argue that, due to pot still being illegal most places, there are more people drunk than there are high. One would expect therefore that there are more gun mishaps involving drunks than people who are high. If you know of any reasonably rigorous studies that get down to rates per capita per episode of getting drunk/high, I'd be interested in a reference.

I think we agree on this, though: If you are going to drink or get high, stay away from guns. If you're going to have guns, stay away from booze and pot...

There's plenty of evidence that alcohol leads many to aggressive and violent behavior and a fair amount of evidence that pot has the opposite effect. I think that's reason enough to belief that a drunk gun user is apt to be more dangerous than a high (on weed) one.

I lived a half mile away from a gun dude that spent about 30 hours a week shooting shit with a rifle.

It gets really old, really fast.

Your greatest risks of all cause mortality are foods you eat, your car, and medical mistakes. I wouldn't worry about gun users very much as being a recreational gun user doesn't typically involve driving a car while intoxicated.

There's a trend to many of Trump's decisions so far, which is that they are punitive. He knows there are things liberals want and support, and he's going to go after those things. Not because he cares about them, but because it's important to him to "get back at" his detractors.

That's a good point, he seems to be a very petty and vengeful person. Just look at his feud with rosie o'donnell.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NP7Lixcc_jQ

Trump says abortion and transgender bathroom use should be a states issue, then what about recreational marijuana?

His lapdog Chris Christie even called it months ago when he said "enjoy it while you can..."

I think abortion / trans gender issues effects people who voted for trump.

I don't think the same can be said for cannabis smokers

Typically, Conservatives and Republicans care about states' rights issues when they believe states will tend to agree with and uphold their values. What matters to them is ideological purity and political power, not consistency.

Everyone is like this; we'll endorse any semi-reasonable means to achieve our desired ends. Should just be honest about that.

I think in a way, Republican rhetoric ("states' rights", "activist judges", "small government") is simply lagging behind their actual positions and values, rather than it being a totally cynical and hypocritical mask. These are slogans which still sound good and make sense situationally. It's easy to agree with them without really thinking it through.

"States' rights" has a specific history going back to slavery. It's not a neutral term.

Chris Christie has been outspoken on the opioid crisis, making a bold effort to re-cast drug abusers as "our neighbors" rather than as criminals.

He spoke at length about it[1] in his recent state of the state address in New Jersey. He made it a key part of his failed presidential campaign[2]. He is reportedly a long time opponent of recreational marijuana[3].

[1] http://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf/2017/01/christie_2017_s...

[2] https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/politics/2015/05/07/chris-c...

[3] http://www.thecannabist.co/2017/01/16/chris-christie-marijua...

What did people expect? I'm sure trump is surrounded by people who have fully bought into the 'gateway drug' myth. The worst is somehow claiming this will aid in the fight against opioids. What a joke!

It's just as likely that they aren't doing this because they bought into the gateway drug myth, but because they are waging a culture war.

You can't make it illegal to oppose the president, but you can make half the people opposing the president criminals for smoking.

> It's just as likely that they aren't doing this because they bought into the gateway drug myth, but because they are waging a culture war.

Precisely.

Which apparently was the original reason behind the war on drugs in the first place. Source [1] [1] http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/richard-nix...

I'd imagine that's exactly what OP was referring to.

Arizona's state legislature is sure giving that a try, though: http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/politics/legislature/201...

How come Republicans/Conservatives want to regulate people but de-regulate businesses ?

Because they care less about the former than the latter? ;-)

Businesses are people. A very special kind of people, even. The best kind.

Because Pharma pays more than people?

All snark aside, traditional Republicans are more in favor of societal stability. And this is achieved, in their mind, via social institutions and a thriving economy. Thus, their values that align with moral institutions, corporations (economic and potential societal homogeneity), and a strong military (both defense and because it shares it's values of a highly connected, dependent structure of individuals striving for a bigger cause).

I'd recommend reading up on the Moral Foundations Theory, especially the work looking at the differences between Liberals and Conservatives in light of this. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_foundations_theory http://www.moralfoundations.org/

Marijuana legality is one of the things the the Obama administration should have settled but never did. I only hope enforcement of the law encourages movement to finally remove marijuana from the schedule drug list.

Not that it wouldn't have been nice for Obama to give everyone a little vacation from pot being on the schedule 1 list, but why do you think it couldn't have been re-added after Obama left office? Anything one executive can order the next can un-order.

This is not terribly surprising. For good or for ill, recreational marijuana use never ceased to be illegal under federal law. And despite the various states passing laws legalizing it, there was that pesky little Supremacy Clause in the US Constitution.

It's been kinda annoying that people seemed to forget or ignore that. Hoping that the fed won't enforce a law was always risky. As we've recently seen, the political climate can shift suddenly and severely. And now people who think a law is a Good Thing that should be enforced have the power to do so.

The Supremacy Clause is immaterial, because while — yes — federal law overrules state law, that only matters if the law itself is constitutional. The Congress has no authority to ban marijuana from intrastate trade: that power is simply not given to it anywhere.

The Supreme court decided that the Fed could regular intrastate commerce in Wickard v. Filburn, and that ruling has also been used since to go after marijuana that stayed intrastate. [1]

I think it's a bullshit interpretation of the text of the Constitution too, but that doesn't change the current legal landscape, however much I or anyone else might want it to.

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn#Subsequent_...

Police power was something meant for the states, not the Federal.

Excesses like this are a good reason to advocate for originalists to SCOTUS.

Thankfully, United States v. Lopez (1995) started to reverse things a little.

They said the same thing about Obamacare.

It will be interesting whether they will respect "states rights" in this case.

States rights is a ruse. The heart decides, and the head justifies. People use states rights when it is convenient, and toss it aside when it contradicts their other beliefs.

Rights are a ruse. The heart decides, and the head justifies. People use rights when it is convenient, and toss them aside when it contradicts their other beliefs.

Especially because some of the "states' rights" issues involve state legislatures overruling more local jurisdiction--case in point, transgender bathroom law.

This is an unpopular position of I support, but this is exactly why I support repealing the 17th amendment and returning to indirect elections of Senators via state legislatures to bring power back to the states.

States can't choose which Federal laws are obeyed inside their borders or not.

If the federal govt. has to enforce federal law in a state, that needs to happen, and the state needs to cooperate to the extent laid out by statute & legal precedent. No more, no less.

The right answer is to have legislation that squares the federal & state policies at the top. "States Rights" never extended to nullification of Federal law, there was a substantial dispute over this in the 1860s.

"States rights" is widely viewed as a racist dog-whistle [1]. States rights doesn't have to be racist, although it is very often linked that way [2].

The war on drugs was instituted as a racist policy [3]. It's quite likely that the main motivation here is using drug laws to punish people of color.

[1] http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/history_less...

[2] https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2001/03/getting...

[3] http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/23/politics/john-ehrlichman-richa...

Of course they have to push back on recreational drug legalization. Cross-border drug trade fueled by prohibition is the primary justification for their signature issue.

"They're bringing drugs..."

you identified why the illegal drug trade is so hot:

> Cross-border drug trade fueled by prohibition

Legalizing marijuana would probably mean more domestic growers, maybe even blowing up like craft beer did.

Legalization could have deeper economic benefits domestically than just access to weed [1]. California regulators are looking at legalization from all angles [2].

[1] http://www.latimes.com/local/abcarian/la-me-abcarian-la-cann...

[2] http://www.cpuc.ca.gov/CPUCNewsDetail.aspx?id=6442452320

Yes, that was my point :)

Of course, legalizing drugs is the easiest way to end the illegal drug trade[1].

[1] http://www.economist.com/node/13237193

Yup. Hence their motivation to nip legalization in the bud. (Pun intended.)

I totally support this, even as someone who voted to legalize it in MA this past election.

The current situation where it's legal at the state level and illegal but "hands off" at the federal is totally ridiculous. Even worse than having marijuana be illegal is having laws applied randomly and with a sizeable portion of the population able to be arrested at someone's whim.

I think legalizing at the state level was probably a good strategy to get the momentum going, but at some point we have to stop it being illegal at the federal level (individual states can outlaw, that's fine). Hopefully this will be the impetus to get that done.

How could he possibly justify the loss in income and jobs which is a cornerstone of his platform? Someone should present the economic opportunity cost to him in a very clear manor and I think the decision will become clear.

There are 1000s of businesses in Washington State, employing 1000s and generating 100MM+ in tax revenues.

You assume that he is rational.

Why justify what you can just deny as fake news?

They're not factory or mining jobs being lost from red states, so who cares?

(edit: ...is Trump's view, not mine)

I think this is a good idea. Not because I think it's good policy, but because the current situation is ridiculous and promotes the uneven application of law. I don't believe federal possession statutes are constitutional, and even if they were I don't think they're good policy, but laws should either be enforced or struck from the books.

The breadth and depth of federal law and regulation itself supports the uneven application. Those who have money can find a lawyer. The remainder of us are chattel kept only for cleaning the toilets of the wealthy.

If the breadth and depth of federal law and regulation supports uneven application, the solution is to pare back the breadth and depth of federal law and regulation, not pick and choose which laws you're going to enforce. The latter leads to a situation where all sorts of draconian laws are passed and nobody cares because they don't expect those laws to be appllied to them.

But that gives the government all the tools it needs to make life a living hell for people who irritate the mandarins in Washinton. I'd be curious to know just how many people in federal prison for possessing less than an ounce of pot are really there for possessing less than an ounce of pot.

If you're disabled they'll stick you on fentynal for $0 on Medicaid, keep you on opiates for life but medical cannabis has no support for the disabled even though the side effects are nothing compared to opiates. Lack of Medicaid funding for medical cannabis is a major driver behind the opiate crisis.

I am by no means a fan of Trump and I think this crackdown is a terrible idea but to be fair...

Spicer noted that Trump supports medical marijuana and understands that patients are in pain and facing terminal illness and have a right to medical marijuana. He also noted the Congressional rider – commonly known as the Rohrabacher-Farr amendment – was in force and prevents DOJ from intervening in medical marijuana states.

and users from HN argued with me saying that trump's admin wasn't anti marijuana.

The argument was that Trump wasn't anti-pot, not his cohorts. Trump did in fact make public pro-legalisation comments starting in the 90s iirc.

and he also made anti-legalization comments.

You can find evidence of Trump being pro and anti on just about every issue you can think of, with the exception of immigration.

exactly, which makes splitting his positions from his administration's a meaningless endeavor.

Reason for rolling back transgender bathroom access: STATES' RIGHTS.

Reason for rolling back state legalization / decriminalization laws: ...

Since all current and just voted recreational states also have a medical program, most people will probably just get a recommendation from a doctor, depending on how lax the laws of their state are. If they're not lax, they will hopefully be changed to be (lawmakers, please see California for a great example). This will either set back progress and the will of the people, or hopefully, stage a huge fight where the states stand up for themselves and demand that this administration respect their constitutions and therefore the will of the people.

What a colossal waste of money.

Unfortunately not surprising. Sheldon Adelson provides a lot of $$$ to the Republican party.

https://theintercept.com/2016/11/02/sheldon-adelson-fights-m...

What part of the Constitution gives the United States power over marijuana, recreational or not? If it required amendments to outlaw alcohol and slavery, why doesn't it require an amendment to outlaw marijuana?

If the United States have no power over marijuana, then the several states, or the people thereof, retain it.

As has been mentioned elsewhere, a 1942 Supreme Court case, (Wickard vs. Filburn) greatly increased the power that Congress could exercise in pursuit of regulating "interstate commerce". Pretty much any activity, by anyone, anywhere, could be put under "interstate commerce". Literally growing your own vegetables on your own farm could now be regulated by Congress, on the assumption that if you were growing those vegetables yourself, you wouldn't be buying them, and would so affect the market price for said vegetables.

Yes, the Supreme Court really did rule that way.

And decision was unanimous.

It will be interesting to see what happens if a recreational drug user mounts a defense based on the 10th amendment -- that the federal govt has no jurisdiction over intrastate drug use.

100 years ago, we thought a constitutional amendment was necessary to ban a substance within a state.

> It will be interesting to see what happens if a recreational drug user mounts a defense based on the 10th amendment -- that the federal govt has no jurisdiction over intrastate drug use.

It's already been tried and failed with medical marijuana, Gonzales v. Raich (2005). And, for that matter, commercial wheat farming, in Wickard v. Filburn (1942).

It's unlikely recreational marijuana would result in a different result.

> It's already been tried and failed with medical marijuana. And, for that matter, commercial wheat farming, in Wickard v. Filburn (1942).

> It's unlikely recreational marijuana would result in a different result.

I dunno, with originalists like Thomas & (hopefully) Gorsuch it's certainly possible. Bad precedent needn't necessarily stand, after all.

> I dunno, with originalists like Thomas & (hopefully) Gorsuch it's certainly possible.

Compared to Raich (2005), even if Gorsuch flipped from the way Scalia went you need another vote; Thomas was on the Court then so is no change.

United States v. Lopez (1995) hopefully started cutting back on such a laughable decision. Can you think of any behavior which doesn't in some indirect way affect interstate commerce?

If the founding fathers had intended for an unrestricted commerce clause, they wouldn't have bothered with the 10th amendment or enumerating the other powers. The constitution is a whitelist.

IANAL. But it might be possible that the Supreme Court no longer regards Wickard as good precedent. IIRC, the Obamacare case got decided in a way that said that the individual mandate could not be justified as "interstate commerce", but that it could be justified as a tax.

This may leave the Feds needing to say, "We can't prohibit it. That's outside the powers given to the Federal government. But we can tax it, and tax it highly enough that nobody can afford it..."

The commerce clause has become the GOTO statement used whenever the national government wishes to interfere with the states.

Ah, somebody already mentioned Wickard.

This has already happened - see Gonzales v. Raich[1].

The Supreme Court ruling on that case was a huge blow to both marijuana legalization efforts and gun rights.

1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich

"When you see something like the opioid addiction crisis blossoming in so many states around this country, the last thing we should be doing is encouraging people.”

So uh... where's the action on opiate addiction?

No, see, because opiate addiction exists, we shouldn't be encouraging people. Only the premise, not the action in the conclusion, references opiates.

I have no idea which of Trumps statements on this topic are going to end up being accurate. All I know is that one side will start mass producing articles with click-bait titles, and another side will ramp up every possible anti-marijuana talking point imaginable.

Mass production of meaningless articles is the worst thing about Trump. It has saturated the media around the world and further lowered the bar of journalism. I really hope people (and especially the media) will learn to ignore him, to take away his power.

That and the reversal on federal use of private prison.. Time to buy private prison stock...

Of course.

The police unions strongly backed Trump and probably helped carry swing states.

This is patronage.

This is just the political disaster anti-fascists need. The public will be overwhelmingly opposed to this and will wake a few people up.

I'm in all favor of the fedgov ignoring marijuana laws if they do the same for gun laws. Unfortunately many who want recreational marijuana legalized want gun control.

Ganja cures the Babylon mind sickness. It shows you the truth.

Truth is the mortal enemy of the state.

For this reason Ganja is and will always be illegal.

They live. We sleep.

Good move! The more they tighten their grip, the more states will slip through their fingers with relegalization backlash.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com